Why US-Iran Islamabad Dialogue Wasn’t a Total Flop
1 min read
Forget the headlines of failure—expert Wael Awwad insists the recent US-Iran parleys in Islamabad, facilitated by Pakistan amid a ceasefire, produced tangible steps forward. In his IANS exclusive, the seasoned analyst termed the outcome ‘inconclusive’ rather than disastrous, challenging US Vice President JD Vance’s downbeat assessment.
Awwad contextualized the talks as a rare summit since 1949, featuring face-to-face exchanges between Vance and Iranian reps. ‘No one calls it failed; it’s just incomplete. Overlaps exist on shared points from Iran’s 10 and US’s 15 agendas,’ he detailed.
Tensions arose from America’s victor complex, rebuffed by Tehran. Stalemates persist on nuclear curbs (where Iran has yielded), Hormuz Strait navigation amid war-altered realities, and a full hostility shutdown versus temporary calm.
On Pakistan, Awwad was blunt: it can’t impose terms. The US must bend, mirroring Iran’s nuclear retreats. He lambasted past Geneva efforts, accusing Trump envoy Steve Witkoff of distorting facts despite endorsements from Oman and UK, fueling war instead of peace.
This dissection paints a nuanced picture: amid deep-seated rivalry, partial consensus offers hope, but only if superpowers prioritize pragmatism over pride.
